Athlon 64 3800+ vs Celeron J4025
Aggregate performance score
Celeron J4025 outperforms Athlon 64 3800+ by a whopping 130% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2532 | 3010 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.63 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 8.77 | 0.43 |
| Architecture codename | Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) | Venice (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 4 November 2019 (5 years ago) | June 2004 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $160 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+ basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 56 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 93 mm2 | 230 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 227 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+ compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | Intel BGA 1090 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+ are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics 600 (250 - 700 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.92 | 0.40 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron J4025 has a 130% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 790% lower power consumption.
The Celeron J4025 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 3800+ in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4025 and Athlon 64 3800+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
